In theory, an interesting idea. However, the research undertaken would be more usefully shared in a more straightforward manner. While I can appreciate the desire to be creative and try to make a topic of history accessible in an innovative way, someone with more than a passing interest in history in general or this topic in particular may not get much out of it.
Unfortunately, the telling-history-through-the-perspectives-of-different-characters gimmick flops. This effect is partially due to the characters' need to include information that is well-known to a modern audience. Okay, so the average Victorian might not have had a basic understanding about lady bits and gentleman bits, but most readers of our age certainly do. So why have a character trot out this information and have the reader slog through it? This particular part reads like the reproduction chapter in a junior-high science textbook.
Most people read history books because they don't want to go to the original sources, so building chapters around the voices of "original" sources is counter-intuitive. History books are supposed to give us an analysis from the perspective of today, but these characters are unable to analyze themselves, stuck in the past as they are. While critical thinking while reading is important, the reader effectively has to do the work with this book, applying their own comparison between Victorian thinking and attitudes and those of today.